I also have to wonder if part of the problem with the new aircraft stems from the fact that we do not design aircraft as frequently as we used to. So we have teams that know how to put a new widget on an existing aircraft but few remain in the industry that has done a REAL whole-cloth new aircraft. I know this has been a challenge in the US rotorcraft industry as I witnessed it firsthand. They come up with big heavy rotorcraft because that is what they know. I have no statistical data but I am told that very few of the graduates of Aerospace Engineering go into the business. Two years ago the then CEO of Eurocopter laminated in front of the American Helicopter Society that more graduates went to work in the F1 motor-racing teams than went into the European rotorcraft industry. As he put it "Why labor over a new rotor tip when you can design a whole car."
Then there is the fact that there is a lot more visibility of what goes on with new military aircraft than there used to be. I was in one of the very first Apache battalions to form in the United States and the helicopter was a nightmare. Horrible readiness rates, horribly expensive and complex and you could have built twice the number of aircraft it replaced for the same cost. I almost quit the Army when they told me I was going to get transitioned into the Blackhawk (affectionately called "Crashhawk", Lawndart", "Sikorsky Suicide Sled" at the time) as they were crashing at a pretty good rate (worse than the V-22 by the way). But there was no internet and pervasive information in those days so they did not get the press, or at least as much.
